I think, @LoyceV had a data of all addresses that hold bitcoin, he may sort it and confirm whether that information is true or not. I have, and it's sorted already. See blockchair_bitcoin_addresses_and_balance_LATEST.tsv.gz. Out of 46 million funded Bitcoin addresses, the top 1% holds 1728674692971682 out of 1933935229497096 sats. That's 89.4%. This data doesn't mean much though: many Bitcoin users own more than one funded address, and many people (think they) own Bitcoin held on an exchange, while the exchange owns one or more addresses with large amounts of Bitcoin. On the other end of the list there are many addresses with dust amounts of Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
With dust attack, the attacker may be able to link your different addresses together. If one of the linked addresses is known to be owned by you, then the other linked addresses will be known to be owned by you too. Or, you can fake this data: you could organize a huge coin join with dust transactions, linking many different wallets with different owners together on-chain. |
|
|
|
Short version: you have a signed transaction with lock time, and the private key of the address where the funds will be sent. To reduce the risk of foul play, you want to sweep the second address the moment the lock time expires. Is it possible to already create the transaction that sweeps the second address? That would make sweeping the funds faster, once the lock time expires. I posted this in another topic: I'm hoping you can create a transaction based on the (still unconfirmed) timelocked transaction. Let's test this: My (testnet) address on my made-up card is tb1qqngm2k9hpc4skrhxf5zl7m0p3m6tm9m0k3jv89. The private key is p2wpkh:cSSznAdAjUnBrL4EtkT1kPkygatqFhv8KrkiBUAY5j8iHcZW9uii. From address tb1q7cevguh0kvpux8y9x9fczfuz2gxtlxrzvetfx4, I create a time-locked transaction to tb1qqngm2k9hpc4skrhxf5zl7m0p3m6tm9m0k3jv89. LockTime is 2428815 (1000 blocks from now). I can't broadcast this transaction yet: 02000000000101e0837ed3bfb89e4491c5cbcedbeda8b5a5e46254c23ad17a0c0bca027a39100e0100000000feffffff01ba7313000000000016001404d1b558b70e2b0b0ee64d05ff6de18ef4bd976f02473044022014954d7969c9ec9a61de472920645e4eff766d4e1e564ee536680e973904943102204f0601b7acc8e4b58ba27fb355029d3a20b8245080699d123e65d3c4ca8d6004012103cf78237d0e6a8bbe2829535515a504721651d8d65d2c5ef8e6b483c77db896a68f0f2500 With this information, I continue in an offline Electrum wallet, and import the private key (the one mentioned above). I was hoping it would allow me to use the signed transaction and build a second transaction from there, but it knows the block height isn't sufficient yet so it doesn't work. I tried again with Bitcoin Core, and I can create the raw transaction, but it doesn't let me sign it: "error": "Input not found or already spent" I really thought this must be possible, but I can't figure out how  So never mind this plan I couldn't get it to work. Maybe I'm doing something wrong, or maybe it's really not possible. |
|
|
|
My second question is whether anyone could suggest some hardware which would be most appropriate for this. My main considerations are low power usage and being powerful enough to run everything I've listed above. I had originally looked at a Raspberry Pi 4, but I have some concerns about whether it could handle everything listed. At the moment I'm sort of considering the Orange Pi 5. I don't actually need it to be a single board computer at all - I'm just looking for energy efficiency with good enough hardware. My usual answer would be: "get a laptop with low power CPU" (and 16 GB RAM), but after checking the Orange Pi 5 specs, that's consumes even less power. I just checked my spare laptop: it uses 8W while "being on" with the screen on the lowest brightness. That includes it's SSD, and it would be a tad less less with the screen off. I like laptops because they're cheap and come with build-in UPS. For your purpose, it would either need a large SSD, or hook up a cheap USB HDD and move the large data there. Unfortunately, I can't advice you on most of the software questions, as I only have experience with Bitcoin Core. |
|
|
|
Even though I don't believe I have anything to worry about, I'd still prefer to add more signers to the multi-sig so I don't have full control anymore. This would make it safer for everyone, I really do not like the fact that users have to trust me. Let's assume there are multiple trusted signers, and the system is nicely decentralized. Would it still be possible for you to pull an exit scam by creating notes that give you access to large funds? Wouldn't the signers just sign it? And if not: how would the signers know whether or not the note was created legitimately after a deposit? |
|
|
|
Loyce...wouldn't that mean you would need access to the private key? In order to create a transacrtion wouldn't the public key paired with the private key need to be loaded and then a transaction can be generated? Didn't know this could be done with no Bitcoin in it. You can't send a transaction from an empty address, but I'm hoping you can create a transaction based on the (still unconfirmed) timelocked transaction. Let's test this: My (testnet) address on my made-up card is tb1qqngm2k9hpc4skrhxf5zl7m0p3m6tm9m0k3jv89. The private key is p2wpkh:cSSznAdAjUnBrL4EtkT1kPkygatqFhv8KrkiBUAY5j8iHcZW9uii. From address tb1q7cevguh0kvpux8y9x9fczfuz2gxtlxrzvetfx4, I create a time-locked transaction to tb1qqngm2k9hpc4skrhxf5zl7m0p3m6tm9m0k3jv89. LockTime is 2428815 (1000 blocks from now). I can't broadcast this transaction yet: 02000000000101e0837ed3bfb89e4491c5cbcedbeda8b5a5e46254c23ad17a0c0bca027a39100e0100000000feffffff01ba7313000000000016001404d1b558b70e2b0b0ee64d05ff6de18ef4bd976f02473044022014954d7969c9ec9a61de472920645e4eff766d4e1e564ee536680e973904943102204f0601b7acc8e4b58ba27fb355029d3a20b8245080699d123e65d3c4ca8d6004012103cf78237d0e6a8bbe2829535515a504721651d8d65d2c5ef8e6b483c77db896a68f0f2500 With this information, I continue in an offline Electrum wallet, and import the private key (the one mentioned above). I was hoping it would allow me to use the signed transaction and build a second transaction from there, but it knows the block height isn't sufficient yet so it doesn't work. I tried again with Bitcoin Core, and I can create the raw transaction, but it doesn't let me sign it: "error": "Input not found or already spent" I really thought this must be possible, but I can't figure out how So never mind this plan |
|
|
|
If scenario two is correct and he does own the private keys, then it would be better to have the owner broadcast and sweep right away and getting the BTC. And that is exactly what I did and will do again once the timelock blocks are met. My idea was to do both: setup a transaction that sweeps the timelock, and setup a transaction that sweeps "the card". Then broadcast them together. |
|
|
|
In terms of the browser, looking in to it a bit more it is obviously not being designed to replace Tor or compete directly with Tor. Rather it has been designed to compete with other non-Tor browsers. Agreed. So they should adjust their marketing a bit, and focus more on the fingerprinting than on the Tor part. Even better if they focus on tracking too. While reading the definition of "coin control" I thought that it would be a great idea to use the feature to gather all the small inputs that one has in an address and send them all to a single address and it seems that I wasn't wrong considering your thread[2] about dust LoyceV. It mostly depends on the current transaction fee. I have a 1 sat/vbyte transaction that's unconfirmed for more than a month now. I'm not in a hurry, so that's fine. |
|
|
|
For privacy Please fix your quote. I'll try to explore the "pay to many" option in my next transaction and "Coin Control". Is there any difference between the two of them? Coin Control is on the input-side, pay-to-many is about outputs. I'll also give it a few weeks before trying it out. Don't get me wrong: getting rid of browser fingerprinting has it's perks, they just shouldn't compare it to Tor. That's a whole different level. It may cause other problems too: if users have the exact same browser fingerprint and use VPN, online casinos can think someone is using multiple accounts. |
|
|
|
I didn't know about this "coin control", it's well explained on the Trezor website, I guess it exists on all hardware wallets If I'd have to guess, I'd guess there must be hardware wallets that don't support it. But when using a hardware wallet and connecting to the manufacturer's server, that server can link all your addresses already. but there doesn't seem to be this possibility on hot wallets. Is this correct? Nope. If you want full control: use Bitcoin Core. To improve privacy: run it through Tor. With the mobile version, it's only possible to freeze addresses which isn't exactly coin control since an address may have multiple UTXOs linked to it. Mobile wallets are usually more limited. The "solution" is to only fund them with small amounts, and don't use funds that shouldn't be linked together. After all, when using a SPV wallet, the server already knows which addresses belong to the same wallet. Mobile Coinomi allows to freeze unspent outputs, which can be used as a (labor intensive) form of coin control. |
|
|
|
what to do (or not to do). What to do: always use Coin Control and manually select which inputs to use. What not to do: don't include dust from the wrong address (for privacy), and don't include dust when it's not worth the fee to send it. When fees are higher than just a few sat/vbyte, adding a dust input increases the fee by more than it's own value. That's a waste of funds. Optional: lock/freeze dust inputs in your wallet, so you don't accidentally send them. |
|
|
|
But what you did was not a review, it was feedback from the service. They are different things. Google shows this definition: review
1. a formal assessment of something with the intention of instituting change if necessary. I'm pretty sure that's what's intended when someone asks for a (paid) review. |
|
|
|
Are you sure about that? I recently checked some of the Mod-payments, and they were higher than I expected. Of course, this is different for each Mod, but so are signature payments.
Can you estimate the average or at least the limits of those payments? even if the numbers are not accurate. Several years ago, I remember this was brought up, and the average was about $60 per week ~240/month (depending on board) but for most it is less than $100 per month. You can check for yourself: all Mods have their Bitcoin address in their profile, then find the monthly transaction that pays several Mods. |
|
|
|
For the blockexplorer result:
Most blockexplorers tend to correlate transactions with P2PK outputs to its P2PKH counterparts by deriving an address from that public key.
But it's not the proper way to show them, P2PK outputs should be searched in a blockexplorer by its TXID. It may not be proper, but it's practical. Otherwise people like OP may overlook the fact that they own a significant amount of Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
One very unhappy customer Michael Blast posted short video and photos of this ''procedure'' and he used hammer as his main instrument  He hits like a girl! I bet it's the first time he uses that brand new looking hammer. Maybe they will improve something in new generation device they are working on. If I hit a device with a hammer, I expect it to break. |
|
|
|
The idea of doing reviews is not a bad one. But I think whenever someone receives money to do a review, it can always give the idea that they are being biased. A good review campaign is designed to avoid biased responses. So: don't pay for good reviews, pay for all reviews. Even better if it's paid up front, so the reviewer doesn't feel any pressure to go in a certain direction. I've done several reviews, and I usually mention the bad stuff. There's no point in mentioning the good stuff, so I mention what I think can be improved. I've had positive responses to this approach. |
|
|
|
|
If I remember correctly, the password on the backup can be different than the password on the wallet itself. Either way, you'll have to brute-force it if you don't know the password, so even getting the phone to work won't help.
|
|
|
|
I'm sorry for asking this @LoyceV but is this achievable by selecting the option "Coin Control"? For privacy (and optimal transaction fees), you should always use Coin Control. Without coin control, I wouldn't just send large change to Mullvad. I imagine that what you're saying is that if a user already knows that his address balance will be left with a small amount of Bitcoin at the moment of the transaction he/she should instruct for the change to be delivered directly to Mullvad address? Correct. Or something else than Mullvad. Speaking of Mullvad, while this isn't related to a VPN it does still involve Mullvad - they've just launched their browser ~ [2] https://mullvad.net/en/browserAllow me to quote them: You could say it’s a Tor Browser to use without the Tor Network. This is bad! Tor literally stands for "The onion router", and the main feature is that no single party other than yourself knows all data. Mullvad now recreated the browser fingerprinting features, but that's not the main part of Tor. |
|
|
|
Now that I'm back at my keyboard, I'll respond a bit more. Sorry for i don't disclose the balance and wallet address as it is pure for security reasons. Based on what you said, I think I could find the address (or a few possibilities) if I'd search. This doesn't matter for security of your address, but you should know all block data is public. I only dealt with "sent to pubkey" coins once. This is how you can safely sign a transaction offline (quote shortened to match your case): - Install a fresh spare laptop (with VPN of course)
- Download the full client
- Import the pubkey, let it synchronize
- Take it offline
- Import the private key
- Create a raw transaction to a new address
- Copy the transaction to a USB stick
- Broadcast the transaction from another device
- Wipe the laptop (don't let it go online again after you entered the private key!)
Importing addresses into Bitcoin Core is more complicated if you use a descriptor wallet. It's easiest to create a non-descriptor wallet for this. I have imported the address and re- synced the wallet. I did not want to import the pvirkey after i saw that the balance does not match, tho the wallet address is correct. I did not import my privkey as i have heard some stories that people lost their bitcoins just because of stupid mistakes they did. So i have to export the public key out of my privkey? Did you manage to import the pubkey yet? If not: importpubkey "pubkey" ( "label" rescan ) You can use bitaddress.org to get the pubkey from your private key, but do this offline running from a Linux Live DVD so you're sure the private key will never be online. Wipe the memory by turning it off. I did not import my privkey as i have heard some stories that people lost their bitcoins just because of stupid mistakes they did. That's a good precaution. Also: it's good to think about what you're going to do with your 5 Bitcoin once you've recovered it. It's probably safest to setup a hardware wallet, learn how to use it safely, create a backup (or 2), and send all your funds there. If you're going to send only a small part, chances are your coins end up on a change-address in Bitcoin Core, which means you should backup your wallet.dat before doing that. After you've securely moved all your Bitcoins, it's good to know you also own some Fork coins worth close to $1000. Know that people have lost their Bitcoins trying to claim them with compromised wallets, so don't do anything with them before securing your Bitcoins. Afterwards I believe you can use the command "importprivkey"[3] in the Console window within Bitcoin Core in order to import your private key. That's the one thing OP shouldn't do on an online computer. If by any chance you get the following message - Rescan is disabled when blocks are pruned (code -4) - you can use the following code to avoid scanning the blockchain for transactions related to the key that you've just imported That's not going to work: OP needs a rescan to import the pubkey. If he has a pruned chain, he'll just have to download the blockchain again. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
